Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2/) ()~ I <br /> 'i"" A <br /> ~~,If>" .1 <br /> l"l:u <br />a. Provide the City with a permanent parking lease/easement. We would need a out 50-60 <br /> parking stalls from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. <br />b. The lease would be free to the City indefinitely. The City would not be responsible for I <br /> snow plowing, ground maintenance, electricity or future reconstruction as long as there is <br /> an occupant in the building that currently houses DynaMark. Any additional light I <br /> fixtures or necessary ADA adaptions would be at the City's expense. <br />c. The lease would be perpetual and renewable at the City's option. The length oftime will <br /> need to be determined by staff and the City Attorney. I <br />d. CDC wants to retain the ability to move the designated parking stalls to another area as <br /> necessary if additional buildings are added to the site. <br />e. CDC will provide the City and easement to access the parking lot. The parking area does I <br /> require access through private streets in order to get Fernwood A venue or Lexington <br /> Avenue. <br />f. CDC will also give the City a 100 foot strip of property west of the parking lot and east of I <br /> our existing trail. The City currently has a 70 foot pedestrian and bike easement over part <br /> of this. Accepting this property would give the City fee title and allow us to develop this <br /> area, if we should ever want to. I <br />Mr. Ringwald stated that it is his understanding that the petitioner is in agreement with these I <br />conditions. <br />Mr. Ringwald stated that approvals given on Parcel B in Planning Case 95-09 and 11 essentially .. <br />fully develop the parcel. Due to this, Stafffeels that Parcel B should be analyzed by itself in <br />relationship to the land development parameters and that those parameters not be flexed to <br />accommodate future growth beyond what the City Code currently allows. I <br />Mr. Ringwald noted the applicant has asked for clarification of "Key Landscape Elements". <br />Area I is an approximately 200 foot wide wooded buffer between Parcel A-2 and the residential . <br />neighborhood to the west. The applicants request would limit the wooded area to the 100 feet <br />that the Park and Recreation Committee is recommending to be accepted as park. This would <br />provide some buffer but would require the City to be responsible for the buffer. Staff concludes I <br />that the applicant should be responsible for some portion of the buffer. Also the edge ofthe <br />wooded area provides excellent screening currently but if the outside edge of vegetation was to <br />be removed, it would expose the more open middle portion of the woodlot and its effectiveness I <br />as a screen would be diminished. Without a specific development proposal, Staff cannot support <br />the requested modification to the designation of the woodlot. If a development proposal is I <br />submitted in the future, Staff could envision a minor infringement into the woodlot of (less than <br />25 feet) but not a major infringement (greater than 50 feet). Area 2 is heavily wooded with a <br />steep ravine leading to Karth Lake. The applicant has requested that the "Key Landscape Area" I <br />start 30 feet east of their current building. Staff is supportive of this distance. The applicant has <br />also requested that the portion of Area 2 adjacent to Lexington A venue eliminated. Staff is <br />concerned with elimination of this area due to its small size and its poor vehicular access to I <br />Lexington Avenue. <br /> -. <br /> I <br />